Dungeons and Dragons...Best version?

[scaliper]

For all you gaming nerds out there...What was(is) the best version of Dungeons and Dragons. Your options, if I recall correctly, are:
Dungeons and Dragons
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
AD&D 2ed
AD&D 3ed
Dungeons and Dragons 3.5
D&D 4.0

Personally, I'm completely won over by 2ed. I dislike 3.5 and absolutely detest 4ed. I've never played either original, advanced, or 3.0.

So, what do you guys think? Also, say what versions you've played so that your "vote" can be put into context. For example, people who like the original game probably shouldn't get indignant at me, as I've never played the original game. That said, feel free to try to tell others why they should play a different version.

As an aside, I apologize if this has been done before, but a quick search didn't find anything.

[Aiea]

I started with 2nd. However, I am compleatly a fan of the 3.0/3.5 era. It just fixed so many of the things I didn't like about 2nd. I mean in 2nd, if you're anything but human most classes have a upper limit of what level you can get to... I mean really? I have played the original once or twice, and while I own some of the 4.0 books I have not had a chance to try and play it yet, but as it stands I'm not sure if I'm a fan. I like being able to make absolutely silly and ridiculus character concepts that sometimes are compleatly worthless in combat. 4.0 just seems to remove the ability to make a non-combat character.

Although... now I appreciate other games, my favorite system is still the original 7th Sea (not the d20 kludge they made).

[Meteorswarm]

I'm in the same boat as Aiea. I started with 2nd when I was frighteningly young, but 3rd fixed so many of its flaws. Right now, I'm really enjoying Pathfinder as a sort of D&D 3.75; it works really well and is still mostly-compatible. 4th is fun, but feels more like playing WoW than D&D.

[Iranon]

1st edition AD&D, although 2nd edition didn't really break anything... it's mostly a matter of feel.

D&D is fundamentally flawed, seemingly not completely aware it pioneered a new type of game. It's written like a small-scale competitive wargame but utterly broken when played like this. This was never fixed, and the earlier editions have enough incomparables that it can provide a rich experience when de-emphasising technicalities. The standardisation and streamlining in later editions is actively harmful.

[Thtb]

homebrew.

[cphite]

For all you gaming nerds out there...What was(is) the best version of Dungeons and Dragons. Your options, if I recall correctly, are:
Dungeons and Dragons
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
AD&D 2ed
AD&D 3ed
Dungeons and Dragons 3.5
D&D 4.0

Personally, I'm completely won over by 2ed. I dislike 3.5 and absolutely detest 4ed. I've never played either original, advanced, or 3.0.

So, what do you guys think? Also, say what versions you've played so that your "vote" can be put into context. For example, people who like the original game probably shouldn't get indignant at me, as I've never played the original game. That said, feel free to try to tell others why they should play a different version.

As an aside, I apologize if this has been done before, but a quick search didn't find anything.

I spent most of my game-time in 2nd edition, but I like 3 and 3.5 about the same. The original was sometimes a little too detailed, and tended to get tedious at times.

The only one I really don't like is 4.0 - to me it's just over-simplified. I especially don't like the way magic is handled, and I greatly prefer the old Forgotten Realms over the new reboot.

[e102]

I like Pathfinder, a.k.a: 3.75

[An Enraged Platypus]

3.5, no questions asked. 4.0 is essentially tabletop WoW.

[warbaker]

I vote 4.0.

For all previous versions, combat was atrocious. It was boring, and had few decisions, tedious lookup, and was loaded with irritating exceptions (flat-footed? attack of opportunity? blech.).

4.0 combat isn't exactly a blast, but it's a lot better. Plus, the skill system is greatly improved, and multiclassing is no longer a joke.

Also, encounter durations are a godsend of simplicity, letting you focus more on the story and strategy, and less on numbers. I certainly don't miss the accounting of 1min/level durations.

[SilverEyes]

I registered to say this.

I started with 2nd for books, but didn't start playing until 2nd revised, and played each edition including 4th. Each edition had it's strong points, but 3.5 stands out the most in terms of how much fun I've had. My players seem to have fallen out of D&D playing the Scales of War 4E adventure path, but still fondly remember my old 3e campaign. 4th is great, but ... well I guess my table has other issues.

However, warbaker makes an excellent point about 3rd/3.5. When my players reached level 13-16 (they would be higher, but you know, deaths), combat slowed to a crawl tracking spell durations. hey would spend hours pouring over Spell Compendium and other splatbooks between sessions. Combat consisted of tracking so many spell durations and effects, and if someone cast [Greater] Dispel Magic or you went into an Antimagic Zone, might as well just call it a night.

[piwakawaka42]

3.5 is my favourite, although once players got to too high a level, combat was all about the casters tracking their durations. These days I mostly play FATE.